The Real Reason Meta Is "Giving Up" Moderation

This article was first posted on TBD+ where it contains more analysis.

Meta has announced sweeping changes to its content moderation policies, including the end of professional fact-checking in the U.S., in favour of a crowdsourced "Community Notes" system (not altogether terrible, but see X). Restrictions on topics like immigration and gender identity have been loosened, with the updated Hateful Conduct policy now allowing users to call gay and trans people “mentally ill.” Additionally, the explicit ban on referring to women as “household objects” has been removed.

First some context, Meta, one of the largest tech companies in the world. It is made up of Facebook, Instagram, Treads, WhatsApp and more, boasting +3.2 billion monthly active users on Facebook alone. Its influence spans across digital advertising, virtual reality (through Oculus), and the growing metaverse ecosystem. These platforms are key drivers of global communication, commerce, and social networking, generating +$156 BILLION, a 23.06% increase year-over-year, primarily from advertising. The company operates under the unchallenged leadership of Mark Zuckerberg, who maintains ironclad control through a dual-class share structure that ensures he cannot be ousted by shareholders (a point i'll come back to).

A Dangerous New Lap Dog

Anyone saying this isn't Zuckerberg bending the knee to Trump is deluded or trying to misinform you. From threatening prison, to calling Facebook "the enemy of the people". Trump threatened Zuckerberg directly and now Zuckerberg is acting like a scared child. Zuckerberg also including promises to move U.S. content moderation operations from California to Texas, where he claims “there’s less concern about the bias of our teams.” Oh, ok...(!). Zuckerberg also vowed to collaborate with Trump in pushing back against international governments “censoring” American companies. You can argue this decision is less about free speech and more about appeasing Trump’s administration to avoid potential legal and regulatory repercussions. TikTok will certainly be watching this with some side eye.

But that's not the whole story for the swing, it reflects a deeper, almost desperate need for validation—"a Naomi Wolf-esque longing to be admired by someone, anyone" as Danah Boyd put it. Instead of allowing people to challenge Meta's decisions and chase accountability, the easier path is simply to abandon fixing the problem, and side with opportunists, crooks, and conmen for a free pass. Zuckerberg, King of Meta, is bored and doesn't want to go down in history as the nerdy schlub that got dethroned by Trump.

Here's the rub. For these changes to materialise, a deliberate and coordinated effort was required at the highest levels of Meta. Mark Zuckerberg and his leadership team had to decide—and agree to publicly justify—policies that explicitly allow hate speech and harassment directed at specific populations, often using religion as an excuse. Let that sink in.

But why?

Is Zuck right to be scared? Yes. Trump's influence extends far beyond rhetoric. A Trump-led government could demand transparency over Meta’s algorithms for one. NSA investigations for another (hello China), the list of issues is long. With Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act under constant scrutiny, a Trump-led government could also push to limit or repeal the protections that shield Meta from liability for user-generated content. Such a move could expose the company to lawsuits over misinformation, hate speech, or harmful content on its platforms (although unlikely as Congress has avoided this for years). Fines, taxes, and stricter oversight could also be weaponised against Meta, particularly if it is seen as an opponent of Trump’s agenda. Additionally, targeted antitrust investigations or restrictions on acquisitions could limit Meta’s ability to expand its empire. The list of potential issues is long, least of all, incarceration for Zuck threatened by Trump in (flicks calendar all the way back to...August 2024).

Replacing fact-checking with community-driven moderation risks opening the floodgates to misinformation and hate speech. Exhibit 1: X. Sure there's some good stuff, but really, the bad outweighs the good, and really, why should we be doing the work? Didn't Meta make +$150 BILLION last year? Don't they employ some of the smartest minds? Didn't they make the decisions as to what to ban and not in the first place? Crowdsourcing lacks the rigorous standards of professional oversight, making it easier for bad actors to manipulate narratives. Relaxing restrictions on harmful rhetoric further undermines public safety, particularly for vulnerable communities. These changes could transform Meta’s platforms into breeding grounds for division, echoing the failures of X’s moderation failures. Aside from all this, gay and trans people aren't, by definition, mentally f**king ill, so why allow people to say it? That's not a choice, that's a harmful move, the likes of which we have seen before in history.

A Dangerous Precedent...And President

My bigger concern is this will, yet again, embolden other tech firms to make similar shitty decisions that hurt people because folks who like to lean right are in power. By caving to political pressure (and this is caving - he had plenty of other options), Zuckerberg signals that profit and appeasement outweigh responsibility and ethics. My bigger concern is for the long-term costs to democracy, user trust, and global discourse could be incalculable. Words matter, bans matter, bringing people together shouldn't be a battle–there are societal norms and legal rules after all. Just as there are rules for safely crossing the road, there are boundaries for labelling someone's mental health without proper qualifications. Perhaps this is where AI will come into its own and there will be a mass movement to auto-sue button for people who defame others on Facebook–a 'Do Not Pay' for racists and homophobes.

The comedy part to all this (if there is one)? Trump and co will probably figure out a way to screw Meta anyway. My guess/feeling is that if 'they' don't own or control you, eventually they'll find a way to dethrone or destroy you.

So let's recap, one of the world’s richest (white) men, untouchable atop one of the most powerful companies with near limitless resources at its disposal on the planet, has decided that pulling back on content moderation is a smart idea because it's (check notes) hard and they're bad at it right now. The decision comes at a time when countries are more divided than ever, misinformation is rampant, and bad actors are everywhere. Rather than assembling the brightest minds to address the chaos his platform has unleashed, the man in charge is retreating, placing blind faith in the so-called wisdom of the crowd.

This isn’t innovation; it’s abdication. It isn’t leadership; it’s capitulation—handing over one of humanity’s most influential platforms to those eager to exploit it. Meta is poised to become both a shield for the powerful and a weapon against the vulnerable. Every employee should ask themselves: Is this the legacy they want to leave behind?

> This article was first posted on TBD+ where it contained more analysis.